Background: For patients with advanced heart failure, palliative care, including opioids, is needed as a treatment for refractory dyspnea. However, little evidence has been reported on the efficacy and safety of opioids, and their use is not well established.

Methods and Results: We have introduced a protocol for the use of opioids for dyspnea in patients with advanced heart failure admitted to Saitama Citizens Medical Center. Following this protocol, differences in clinical variables and outcome were investigated between patients in whom opioids were initiated intravenously or subcutaneously (i.v./s.c. group; n=13) and patients in whom they were initiated orally (oral group; n=18). In a comparison of baseline characteristics, significantly more patients in the oral group had a history of hospitalization for heart failure within the past year, and significantly more patients were treated with dobutamine and tolvaptan. After initiation of opioid treatment, both groups showed improvement in dyspnea; however, serial changes in vital signs were significantly greater in the i.v./s.c. group. The survival rate was significantly higher in the oral group (P<0.0001), with 33% of patients discharged alive.

Conclusions: The clinical use of oral opioids using a single-center protocol is reported, suggesting that oral opioids may be practical and effective for dyspnea in patients with advanced heart failure.

Background: Very severe aortic stenosis (AS) has a poor prognosis even in asymptomatic patients, and asymptomatic very severe AS is a Class IIa indication for aortic valve replacement, although the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for very severe AS is not well-established.

Methods and Results: This study included 366 patients undergoing TAVI at a single center, with 85 and 281 patients in the very severe AS (peak velocity ≥5 m/s or mean pressure gradient (PG) ≥60 mmHg) and severe AS groups, respectively. Procedural and clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared between groups. The calcium scores were significantly higher in the very severe AS group (2,864.5 vs. 1,405.8 arbitrary units [AU] (P<0.001). Although the patient-prosthesis mismatch rate was higher in the very severe AS group (38.3% vs. 25.7%; P=0.029), there was no significant difference in the early safety and clinical efficacy between the groups (16.5% vs. 17.1% and 12.0% vs. 18.9%, respectively). Similarly, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 1 year (4.8% vs. 9.8%).

Conclusions: Despite a higher incidence of prosthesis–patient mismatch in those with very severe AS, the procedural and clinical outcomes were comparable to those in patients with severe AS. TAVI may be a reasonable treatment option for very severe AS.